Save the Children's new report on marketing practices of formula-milk companies: what do you think?

[RowanMumsnet]

As some of you may have seen from press coverage over the weekend and this morning, Save the Children is today launching a report into the marketing practices of formula milk manufacturers.

The report focuses specifically on marketing in developing countries - where a lack of good sanitation and public health awareness can make formula-feeding precarious - and on the importance of colostrum to a baby's long-term health. You can read more about the campaign and see the petition here.

We've been asked to get behind this campaign - and as ever, in these situations, we need to know what you think!

Is this something MNers would like us to support? As many of you will know, we have long refused advertising from Nestle and its majority-owned subsidiaries. Save the Children's report is also critical of Danone, the second-largest formula manufacturer.

We'd be really interested to hear your views.

Cubtrouble

Have I missed something? The thread begins:
"As some of you may have seen from press coverage over the weekend and this morning, Save the Children is today launching a report into the marketing practices of formula milk manufacturers.

The report focuses specifically on marketing in developing countries - where a lack of good sanitation and public health awareness can make formula-feeding precarious - and on the importance of colostrum to a baby's long-term health. You can read more about the campaign and see the petition here."

Where is the reference to "put the warning labels on the box in this country" that you are complaining about?

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2280270/Baby-formula-milk-cigarette-style-health-warnings-telling-mothers-breast-best-says-charity.html

See if this link works.

this is not the daily mail.

I feel really strongly about this - and Dreaming Bohemian has put my thoughts into words better than I can do, I think! (especially in the post of Mon 18-Feb-13 11:50:10)

Mumsnet - please don't support this campaign as it is. It uses really non-linear thinking! Packaging changes in European languages will not affect behaviours in the developed world.

Rather, can you get behind coming down harder on the FF companies if they contravene the spirit or the letter of the WHO regulations? And as people have said above, campaigning for access to clean water for all.

I have not yet had time to look at the stats in the Save The Children report in any detail at all, but at first glance, the headline stats seem to be full of hyperbole. Eg ^'Research for this report
estimates that 830,000 newborn deaths could be
prevented every year if all infants were given breast
milk in the first hour of life.'^ This seems to have come from a 2008 report in Southern Nepal, noticing that time between birth and breastfeeding impacts on mortality. But what we don't see (and as I have said, I have only glanced at this report so it could be there), is the bigger picture - what other factors are in place with those Nepalese newborns, that impacted survival?

Can anyone explain why formula contains potentially baby-killing bacteria and formula companies can't sterilise the powder?

Or why the formula companies don't limit the supply in under developed countries to ready made small cartons that don't require a bottle or any sterile equipment and make them very very cheap. They could be subsidised by more wealthy countries for mothers that don't have a choice in what to feed the baby.

PLEASE support this campaign.

What mums in the minority world (UK etc) do is not really relevant to this topic, imho, it is about the safety of babies in the majority world, whose families do not have access to clean water and sanitary conditions and cannot afford this powdered milk. Certainly it would be wonderful for them to have access to clean water etc and something for all of us to strive for but that is not the same as the issue at hand of greedy companies peddling their wares to people who cannot afford them and cannot safely use them!

I don't any mums here in the UK need to feel bad or stigmatised about their feeding choices at all.

There will be a number of mums in the majority world (and everywhere) who do need to use formula because they have HIV/ADS and don't want to pass the disease on, or because of other things like unable to feed etc but many many people will be able to feed by breast and should be able to have the chance to do that.

In the UK a lot of women have that choice and if they choose to use formula they know they can do so safely, that is not the issue in the majority world.

Please support this campaign.

Cubtrouble I like your idea of whealthier countries subsiding the others.

Certainly they make the milk in those ready to use bottles which are sterile as I had some in hospital when I could not feed due to a medical procedure.

noblegiraffe have you read somewhere that the powder contains bacteria? I think in the majority world the problem is lack of clean water and lack of sterile conditions to make up the feeds.

Cubtrouble I meant when I could not breast feed due to a medical procedure.

They can make it sterile and ready to go so why do they sell it powered in situations like those described by Save the Children!

I would support this campaign. I had our DD in a developing country. I was unable to BF. DH needed a prescription to buy bottles. Formula was a different story. He got the box with the healthiest looking baby on it. He is an educated person.
IMO, formula milk should be sold in plain tins/packs. In the event that babies are needed on the box, they should be babies that reflect the nationality that they are aimed at.
One woman told me that using brand X would ensure her baby grew up with pale skin. Which, in a lot of developing countries is prized.
I doubt it would.

Are you serious??? 'Limit the supply in under developed countries to ready made small cartons that don't require a bottle or any sterile equipment and make them very very cheap.'

It isn't an accident that people find themselves formula feeding in areas where it's incredibly expensive and they don't have access to clean water!! It's company policy!

Formula companies actively target these mothers. They give free samples until the mothers' milk has dried up and then they have no option but to buy formula. Only, because it happens to be incredibly expensive, they over dilute it causing issues of dehydration and malnourishment. They buy access to midwives who push their product. Ever noticed that UK midwives seem overly fond of one brand even though by law it's got the same core ingredients as the rest ...

This has been going on for decades. All formula companies do it. People boycott Nestle over it but the others are just as bad.

The codes and regulations that control formula marketing aren't some hippy attempt to increase BF rates. They're a direct response to the behaviour and practises of these companies in countries around the world. They're an attempt to stop companies convincing women that formula is somehow superior to breast feeding and get them using a product that they don't have the funds to buy for the next year, in areas where water can kill.

Here

Here

As the second link shows, you can change attitudes.
'Some countries have taken huge strides in encouraging more women to breastfeed. Rates in Sri Lanka rose from 17% in 1993 to 76% in 2007, and in Ghana from 7% in 1993 to 63% in 2008.'

The companies are acting for profit. That's what they exist for. And that 59% of women not using formula in Sri Lanka translates to millions of pounds of sales lost for them.

Breast feeding doesn't require a 'recommended, balanced diet.' It removes the risk of contaminated water. It is free - you'll see in the first link that the cost of formula for one baby is half the husband's wage each month.

Basically, look at what the formula companies do in the UK.

Follow on milk. The stuff from Age 1+. When did that become the norm? And what do the adverts say? That a baby would have to drink 'this much' (massive bottle) cow's milk to get the same amount of iron that is in one bottle of follow on milk. That it promotes growth and health.

We're pretty media savvy but they've managed to create a demand through marketing for something that wasn't on the radar 10 years or so ago. And it's pricier. Because who doesn't want to ensure their baby is healthy and has '100% of their daily requirement' of vitamins and minerals?

The reality is that, no, cow's milk isn't a great source of iron. Beef is though, and plenty of 12 month olds eat that. And dried fruit and leafy green veg. And ordinary formula that many of them have been on for the past 6 months. But comparing it to cow's milk sounds impressive.

I live in South East Asia and I see the results of the advertising (bullying) campaign daily.

Mothers are being convinced that their milk is not good enough and that wealthy 'Westerners' always feed their babies formula from 6 months. It is very, very frustrating trying to convince families living on less than $1/day without access to clean water that formula is not the best option.

I never understood the drama about Nestlee boycotts until we lived here. I thoughtlike many MNersthat women should have the right to choose. I now don't believe that it is purely a 'choice'. We are bombarded endlessly with messages that tell us that we are not enough and that products made by multi-million dollar corporations can offer better solutions. It is utter nonsense. Baby formula is just one example of this marketing but because of the damage it does it needs to be stopped.

Formula in the developing world exists for one reason only: to make profit.

I'm amazed by the double think on this thread. Apparently everyone in the UK knows 'breast is best'. And yet it doesn't matter one jot that the majority of babies here aren't breasted for more than a few weeks.

I think it'll be hard to challenge continuing high rates of formula use in developing countries while in the West we continue, en masse, to reject breast feeding.

I actually on thinking about it think this a beyond daft idea and it makes you question the Save the Children who seem to becoming more political.

Mothers in developing countries actually desperately need completely different packaging than us as I said further up.I was joking re a skull and cross bones but really they do need something stark and I would have thought in picture form if literacy is low and I presume ability to read English very low.Mothers in developing countries have far more on hand support to help with breast feeding.

On the other hand mothers in this country have buggar all support and in many ways more of a reliance/need for formula.Formula is a good alternative which carries very little risk.What risk there is(which is tiny when you factor in how many bottles 1 baby actually consumes and our facilities) I presume could be made even smaller if taking care with water temp on adding powder was highlighted more. Maybe it is now.Putting that on a tin going to the third world would have no benefit and putting stark graphics to help third world mothers would be highly dangerous for mothers with little support here.

Sooooo to actually help both sets of mothers different things need to be printed you can't marry them both.

I think it is a very ill thought out and amateur idea and does make you wonder about who came up with it and why.

Far better as others have said to concentrate on formula not getting there at all or keeping milk for developed countries here and packaging milk for developed countries differently.If it is ending up on the black market surely those responsible could be traced-we seem to be doing a good job re tracking horse meat.

Hmm, it does matter that mothers in this country are not choosing to breastfeed more often and for longer Shagmund, but not as much as when mothers with no access to clean water or kitchens to boil the water go down that route in the developing world.
I think people are mainly appearing to say that FF is OK in the UK because of the comparison of the harsh reality in developing countries.

It's very encouraging to see what has been done regarding increasing breastfeeding rates dramatically in Sri Lanka and Ghana Narked (76% up from 17%, and 63% in 2007 up from 7% in 1993)

Yay ! Maybe progress is possible

All the science shows breast is best and also women in countries without access to clean water cannot safely bottle feed. See Narked's comments above. It is appalling most of these women bottlefeed at all when they cannot safely do so.

I agree with this campaign, but cant put it anywhere near as eloquently as others upthread, so will stick with just saying I agree! :)

"Or why the formula companies don't limit the supply in under developed countries to ready made small cartons that don't require a bottle or any sterile equipment and make them very very cheap. They could be subsidised by more wealthy countries for mothers that don't have a choice in what to feed the baby."

Many possible and detailed answers to that one, but the main ones are money, industrial capacity (big packs of powder cheap to produce and transport; small RTF cartons complete with bottle/teat extension extremely expensive to produce and transport), profit, obligation of companies to produce the best returns for the share holders, impossibility of a system of wealthy country subsidy.

On another point: the mothers who end up feeding formula because of unethical marketing and putting babies at serious risk cannot wait for better sanitation and cleaner water. But they can breastfeed - this is a change that can happen individually and immediately.

have you read somewhere that the powder contains bacteria? I think in the majority world the problem is lack of clean water and lack of sterile conditions to make up the feeds.

Yes, in the developing world the far bigger problem is that lack of clean water and sterilising facilities, but there can be bacteria in formula milk sold in western countries too.

Here is a page from the NHS website explaining why it is so important that formula is made with water at the correct temperature. Making up formula incorrectly is a risk to babies all over the world, which is why a warning on packaging stating how important it is that formula is made to the exact instructions is worthwhile all over the world, even our apparently educated society.

It really isn't that uncommon for mothers in this country to use sterile water that has cooled too much to kill the bacteria, and nor is it uncommon for mothers to use too much formula in the hope that it will make their babies less hungry. This can lead to dehydration in babies.

A warning on all formula is needed, not just in the developing world, and I think there should also be a warning that states that introducing formula too early can lead to breast milk supply decreasing. I know a few mothers that have wanted to breast feed who have given formula to help them though the early days and then had their own milk supply disrupted by their babies not feeding from them.

Piglet the warning labels are referenced in the actual Save the Children petition and campaign page, if you follow those links

Narked I don't think anyone is arguing with you that the formula companies are being seriously evil in the developing world. But can I ask, why do you think this specific proposal warning labels will make a difference?

As far as I can tell, this is not a general campaign, this is a very specific campaign to introduce cigarette-style warning labels on formula. I have not really seen on this thread anyone explain why they think this specific measure will work.

No one, least of all me, is saying we shouldn't go after the formula companies. I just don't think this particular measure will go anywhere or be effective and therefore I think energy should be conserved for more potentially effective ideas.

holy shit just heard a piece about this on radio 4.

Can someone remind me again why we should be considerate of the feelings of 1st world women who have chosen to FF when working out the best strategy for helping developing country women who have lost 5 out of their 6 children to malnutrition and disease?

Because I think I am about to lose it big time.

I mean if we can efficiently tackle the big problem without making the little one worse than so be it. But the moment the two are in conflict......

Because both sets of women(and babies) have completely different needs.A one size does not fit all and lets both down to be frank.

The problem seems to be that 'European' formula without warnings might get shipped to developing countries.
Why can't we just stop that from happening?